Land of the Blind

2006
6.4| 1h50m| en| More Info
Released: 01 May 2006 Released
Producted By: Studio Eight Productions
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

A soldier recounts his relationship with a famous political prisoner attempting to overthrow their country's authoritarian government.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Studio Eight Productions

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 30-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped
Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.
Loui Blair It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.
Bob This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.
lohrasb What all revolutions have in common is idealists overthrowing a tyranny, only to replaces it by what makes atrocities committed by former villains, pale in comparison. Another distinguishing characteristic of such tectonic shifts in the geopolitical landscape is the existence of an odd bunch, its members having an awkward sense of right and wrong. As a result, they always fall foul of the el comandante, no matter who it is. Lastly, it's been quite unfair to make Donald Sutherland resemble Karl Marx in the movie poster. Karl Marx pointed out the short comings of a capitalist system, warned the stinking rich against what could happen to them if they don't alter their practice. But at the same time, he discouraged radical revolutionaries who sought his blessing for their actions.
Aalok Das Really a most thought-provoking dystopia film with a bizarre ending that like most great movies - leaving you wondering...It drags a bit and is quite silly in the first half hour, but then it picks up, adding elements, symbolism, styles and phrases of dystopian regimes throughout the past 2-300 years. The basic plot tells of a shift between an aristocratic fascist consumerist decadent regime to a fundamentalist communist anti-knowledge mobocratic one - most similar in style to what happened in Russia post 1917, the first part, and China post 1949 or even Iran post 1979, the second part.Throughout, the film intersperses bits of rhetoric that make you ponder as to what its message might be. Unexplained vignettes of Elephants and Schizophrenia deepen the message and add layers to what might originally come across as popcorn-satire with a powerful cast. The apparent twist towards the end is well executed and is the cherry on top. But it certainly could have been made with more finesse, but then perhaps it would have been too serious to hold any box-office appeal, which political satire always must capture - for otherwise it would not be of much purpose.
ifheringa I wont devote too much time to reviewing this film for the following reason:There's nothing wrong with a political message if you respect the medium that's being used to express it.This film has bad cinematography, bad directing, bad lighting, very average music, a bad pace , bad dialogue, and none devoted actors... What are Fiennes and Sutherland doing in this film?Robert Edwards may be a more intellectual type than Uwe Boll but his directing and writing skills are of no higher standard.Please Edwards, do better next time or make use of other mediums for your idea's. I don't however believe you'd be very successful with such a horrible movie on your resume.
SnoopyDogDog Most of the reviews I've read about this film, are negative, full of disdain. Oh wait. Correction: Most of the American reviews I've read about this film are negative! The Americans, en masse, fail to catch the subtle references to the Bush-era: - The father-son tack, how the son is a moronic brute and a sadist while the father is a smart brute. - The elephant, symbol of the ruling USA party, is portrayed here as a symbol of fascist nepotism. - The "Hearts and Minds" phrase, not subtle at all. Still, most missed it.Some even miss the character development in Joe completely, describing all movie characters as totally flat.Most of the US reviewers label this movie as "pretentious", clearly in a pathetic effort to pander to the half-intellectuals of the Midwest. To soothe them. "Oooh it's pretentious", if there was ever a word signaling defeat more, I haven't found it. So, hey Midwesterner, yes it might be a critique on your country but it's a burger-and-coke-ignoring piece of pretentious crap, so feel free to diss this film.And yes, while some some themes are not new (power corrupts, extreme left is as wrong as extreme right), this is something that is especially relevant today when the worlds strongest power is sliding down the slippery slope towards some sort of theocracy.Lots of critics seem to enjoy making fun of Joe, by wondering why he's willing to endure the torture?!! Joe is the one figure who stands up for democracy, the classic selfless Hollywood hero, who doesn't squander his ideals, yet the New York Times deems him "a priggish masochist"!!? Wow, talk about IMMORAL to the extreme. The leftist slant in mainstream media has definitely disappeared for good from the NYT.Also, criticizing the most obvious and superficial traits of the film shows that they miss the hidden meanings, as mentioned above, of the film. And Edwards was so kind to make an overt statement about that, by letting one of his characters say: "I am always looking for subtext"!! Oh my effing God, how can you then miss this? Baffling.